Let's just shut down all American and Australian research institutions and outlaw the practice of science in these countries, as they're the places you will find the most rich backwards conservatives likely to purchase the "work" of scientists to "prove" their opinion and force it on people.

I was playing god of war one evening and then my dog walked into the room, his paw was bleeding (I presumed that his nail got ripped out from him tripping on the stairs in my house) I was absolutely horrified at this.I think I stared in shock for a few seconds before I scooped him up and drove him to the local vet and I was shaking with fear in the waiting room at the thought that he might be in severe pain and at the very real possibility that he might have to be put down. (he's a 15 year old dog and I wasn't sure how much it might cost to have the vet preform surgery or if it would be better for my dog to just die there and then)

Just a half hour earlier I was shoving my virtual blades of chaos down a minotaurs throat and tearing a minion in half.Not to discredit this man's research as I do believe that depending on other factors in a person's life, seeing violence in either a video game, movie or various other forms of media can be a contributing factor to aggressive behavior if only temporary.

And by the way for those who are wondering, my dog is still alive and well with me. :)

Well, the good thing is that games are the art of making you feel something. And usually games make you mad, but only because that was planned. or something.... look, I played a hell ton of violent games from the arcade days to this day in age, and any danger I've seen scared the shit out of me.

You do realise these are peer-reviewed scientific journals and therefore unlikely to contain any crap from 'pop-psychologists', right?

There is no point trying to argue against the notion that games cause aggressive behaviour. The studies are overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that they do; but it seems to be mostly short-term effects. It's the same with any other media, and that's the point we should be pressing; yes, violent videogames cause violent behaviour, but so do violent films, and there is no controversy with them, so why treat games differently?

There are no studies of which I am aware that establish a causal link between video games and violent behavior. This study doesn't purport to do so, either. Aggressive behavior is not the same thing as violent behavior.

As usual, I read and type too quickly. Yes, you're right, that should be aggressive behaviour, not violent behaviour.

Interestingly, I did a quick dig and whilst violent games leading to aggressive behaviour is fairly well established, according to a recent study: "Neither video game violence exposure, nor television violence exposure, were prospective predictors of serious acts of youth aggression or violence."

So yeah, definitely not violent then.

EDIT: Just found this as well, taken from a book attacking violent videogame hysteria:

One such study is a "noise blast" test, which is supposedly designed to measure aggression through the volume and duration of a noise blast one test subject administers to another. Yet, as the authors point out, it is hard to draw any conclusions about real-life activities from a test without any context or real world implications.

Maybe this study isn't so good after all.

The issue was pushed front and center by Leland Yee's violent video game-labeling law that currently pends an opinion by the Supreme Court. A requirement of any such law is that the proponent offer proof of a causal connection between violent video games and real-world violence. The "studies" that California offered to the Court were ripped to shreds by the opponents of the law. Those "studies" didn't even come close to proving the required causal connection.

Video games desensitize you to fictional violence, not actual violence. I'm pretty sadistic when it comes to games and movies, but I find real violence pretty appalling and I tend to view people that resort to it as the lowest form of scum imaginable. Fictional Violence is just the images we see, it doesn't have the actual meaning or effect of real violence.

As for actual violent behavior, I think its more to do with the frustration or challenge created by games that causes it. The same way some people get pissed off and break shit if their computer crashes or they can't do their math homework. When I was younger I only raged out at difficult or unfair games like Mario Kart with its FUCKING BLUE SHELL that made me want to KILL A BABY WITH MY TEETH every time my siblings used it to knock me out of first place.

Maybe I misread, but it looked like the study only showed an increase in, as the Penny Arcade guys put it, "Being kinda mean". Blasting loud noise in someone's ear is not exactly horror movie material. The desensitization to violence makes sense. So I guess what I'm saying is the study works as far as it goes, it just doesn't indicate much.

There hasn't been a shocking game out for quite some time and these killjoys are just clutching at straws, desperate to cling to any fading notion of videogames being bad for society whilst the same people want to promote the war in the middle east. Hypocrisy much?

You see a guy get shot, it's better to just man up, stay calm, and call the cops, instead of flipping the fuck out like a blubbering goddamn pansy.

Who says you'd call the cops? Desensitization to violence doesn't just mean not being as grossed out by blood/guts/whatever, it also means how well you react to it. Be desensitized enough and you probably wouldn't bat an eye to the shot man. Not saying video games, or any other medium, makes people do that, but that's the main point of these studies. Various forms of media do cause some aggressive behavior depending on the situation, we just need to know the short-/long-term effects of it. It's nothing to scoff at, really.

you know what i am going to murder him now since vidoe game De-sensitized to real life violence. when i am done with this guy he will have cork screw though his eye! while i beat the shit out of of him with a 2×4!

not really i don't like fighting in real life nore do i like blood so this guy is wrong

Eri:Bitch please. De-sensitized to virtual violence is not the same thing as being de-sensitized to real life violence. Just ask Penn and Teller.

know that you mention penn and tell her a link to the first part of that episode on video games

Plenty of things caused violence before hand. What's your point? All forms of media have some sort of an effect on the human psyche, regardless of whether violence has happened before, no matter how minor it may potentially be. Depending on studies, video games, and many other mediums, may cause aggressive. What we don't know is what the extensive long-/short-term effects are, and why it may affect some people more than others. The brain is a complicated thing, that's why "common sense" is said to be an oxymoron :P

ya but mind you he is giving a group a violent media and the other a peaceful one, it's like those kids science fair projects if a plant lives after listening to certain happy musics and die after listening to let's say linkin park, now if anything is subjected to one thing for it's entire life it will be the only thing they know, check out abuse victims, gaming exposes long time gamers to every kind of human emotion, if they want to do this test right they should expose the subjects to both kind of games during an extended period of time and see what kind of reaction they get.

Plenty of things caused violence before hand. What's your point? All forms of media have some sort of an effect on the human psyche, regardless of whether violence has happened before, no matter how minor it may potentially be. Depending on studies, video games, and many other mediums, may cause aggressive. What we don't know is what the extensive long-/short-term effects are, and why it may affect some people more than others. The brain is a complicated thing, that's why "common sense" is said to be an oxymoron :P

Jumplion, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Agree with all the things you say, including your criticism on Mr. Tito. I basically said the same thing about aggressive games causing people to become aggressive (I may have used the term violent, my mistake), but it's usually for a short while after playing. Also the desensitisation is context-sensitive, so just because you can dismember people easily in a game doesn't mean you'll be so chipper doing it in real life.

Also people in here who are saying everyone likes to pick on games these days: Get over it. It's been the same thing when film came out, then television. Psychology studies human behaviour and since human behaviour is affected by recent developments, psychology studies those too. The most recent and relevant to human behaviour currently being video games and the internet. And don't you believe for one second they're not looking at what time spent online does to a person.

Just saying, no one is picking on video games because they think they're bad. They're just a big behavioural influence, and worthy of being tested.

Violent video games create a desensitivation to violence, this is no surprise

The whole thing they want to prove is that it has long-term ill effects, and it doesn't. I play violent games, I'm slightly aggressive afterwards, I sleep, I loose that aggressiveness I gained, and over time I become re-sensitized to violence. It's common sense to say "ohh, this person was beaten and raped, this is bad" and most people will have this response even IF desensitized >.>

[The experiment Bartholow conducted exposed some young adults to violent games like Call of Duty and Killzone (not sure which versions) while others played non-violent games. Bartholow then showed subjects violent images and neutral images - the examples given were a dude with a gun in his mouth and a man on a bike - and measured their brainwaves to gauge their reaction. The group of subjects who played the violent games had a demonstrably lower reaction to the violent image, which Bartholow said proves they were "desensitized" to violence.

Whereas I propose that a desensitization to violence is actually a good thing, be its correlation with violent games true or not.

As we know from experience, the single greatest causes of violence are anger and fear. A desensitization to violence removes the fear of violence, taking out a good chunk of the problem.

Here's my logic: Take 9/11 (sorry if this is a bit of a sore spot fore some people, but that's part of my point), for example. Would the response (both internal and external) have provoked so many acts of violence if people did not care?

If you can teach kids to be relatively moral (in a not-kill-people general sense), then there is no harm, even a benefit in desensitization.

(I'll admit that a good number of people believe that there should have been some form of response to the acts of 9/11 (I'm one of them, I also believe that something should have been done far sooner, such as building schools and repairing homes after the soviets were driven out of afghanistan). My main issue was the acts of violence and racism committed against the muslim communities back home that continue to this day.)

Violent video games create a desensitivation to violence, this is no surprise

The whole thing they want to prove is that it has long-term ill effects, and it doesn't. I play violent games, I'm slightly aggressive afterwards, I sleep, I loose that aggressiveness I gained, and over time I become re-sensitized to violence. It's common sense to say "ohh, this person was beaten and raped, this is bad" and most people will have this response even IF desensitized >.>

Personal anecdotes =/= scientific discovery.

Small, short-term effects may go away after some time for some people, but the eventual build of of said short-term effects could potentially lead to more long-term effects due to the frequency and intensity of the effects. While I hate using this analogy, the first time you use a drug it has a short-term effect of a high and eventually those effects become more permanent to both your mental and physical state.

Saying that "it's common sense" is a complete disservice to scientific discoveries as a whole, especially in psychology. Truth is often stranger than fiction, and the human mind is an incredibly complex mechanism that adapts to so many things at once and can be developed completely differently if surrounded in a different environment. You'd think it's "common sense" to call the cops after witnessing a murder, and yet thisis notthe case.

As an amateur Psychologist, I have to ask, how authentic was his studies. Judging from how sure he sounded, he must of had a hundred and more for his study. However, judging from what he has shown, and from the equipment that he is using as well as the accomidations that the people have, I say he is underfunded and is grasping straws, with only a few people to work with as guinea pigs.

Also his studies are purely pointed towards the fact that people who play violent videogames are always violent, he is not leaving enough room to actually leave the possibility that violent videogames also act as a release of endorfens that work as a 'stress releaf'. He is only looking at it through a Psychological and Stereotypical way, which is quite dangerous, and Psychologist have lost their jobs and reputation over drabble like this. He needs to be more precise before he can say it's 'The Facts'.

This is such a bad test. The games that are violent are competitive, they create an environment in which you want to win, under any circumstances taking whatever advantage you can. If I'm playing anything where I can distract my opponent I'm going to, sometimes it means yelling, thus the loud noise. In a game that is non-violent there is no competition, thus relaxes the person, and from there aren't going to be as competitive, and not want to distract as much.

I really feel like this is why psychologists wonder why people in the sciences don't take psychology seriously or as a real science. This is how one of my psych friends explains it, there are people like that who claim to be a professional (they may very well be) but then spew out crap like this violence and video games nonsense.

It's sad to because it is these psychologists that get the public eye, not the psychologists who do work which is meaningful in developing psychology as a science.

I've never played anything as horrifyingly violent as the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. That scene still sticks in my head as just about the most horrible thing I've ever seen on a screen. The thing is, it's the sounds that stick with you. The crying, the sick thwack of a bullet impact on flesh, someone calling for their mother. See how desensitized they are to the sounds of real human death or pain afterwards, something notably lacking from any video game, probably because you'd end up feeling terrible if the terrorist/nazi/russian/alien you just shot in the stomach started crying out for his mother while bleeding out.

RedEyesBlackGamer:Video games can potentially cause desensitization to violence and a temporary increase in aggression? Gasp! This is me trying to sound surprised.EDIT: Also, I found this article terribly nonprofessional. Could you sound any more defensive?

I thought this when I read the title. Then I read the article and wanted to post this. Then I saw that someone beat me to it in the first comment.

So... no other media does this? No violent TV shows, films, or books can desensitize or cause any sort of aggression? That makes total sense. /sarcasm

Still, I don't think this sounds like an accurate test. Showing someone a picture of a dude with a gun after they play one game or the other doesn't really prove much, does it? I certainly don't think so.

2012 Wont Happen:What these people don't understand is that, for many people, if they could not shoot bullets at imaginary terrorists and aliens, they would be shooting bullets at real co-workers and bosses.

Bullshit, that really paints the gamer stereotype pretty badly, as if the sentiment that they really are social shut ins that will go on a rampage if not satisfied. If people couldn't control themselves simply because they didn't have some imaginary terrorist/alien to shoot at, we'd all be dead by now. People are placing this study, and many others like it, into extremes here. The argument was never that people go crazy after playing violent video games, it's the debate over how intense certain short-/long-term effects may be when playing or viewing any form of violent media.

The logistics of this, and many studies, may be in question, but too often people get extremely defensive over something that should be legitimately researched and debated.

Quick question, just how much do you know about psychology? The name Freud? Maybe something about sitting on a couch and talking?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

It's so easy to criticize something you don't understand at even the most basic level, isn't it?I'm not a psychologist, just sayin'.

Is psychology a science? Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of it knows that it's a science. Specific areas of it, however, have always been up to debate for various good reasons, but there's not a chance in hell you're going to refute an experiment this simple.

Maybe you ought to study a little more about what it means to be a science before you start making bold claims like these, scrub.

And while you're at it, why don't you take a look at what you're trying to argue here. Violent video games desensitizes people to violence? You're trying to say that this isn't the case? Are you kidding me? There's defending video games, and then there's lobotomizing yourself so you never have to notice anything wrong with it.